Bulgarian natural gas sector development Regulator’s point ...
Regulatory Options to Curb Debt Stress FOCUS NOTE · avoiding risks to financial markets,...
Transcript of Regulatory Options to Curb Debt Stress FOCUS NOTE · avoiding risks to financial markets,...
1 These include Bolivia (1998–1999), Colombia (1999–2000), South Africa (1999–2002), Bosnia–Herzegovina (2008), Nicaragua (2009–2010), India (2010), and Chile (2010–2011).
2 See, e.g., Micro-Credit Ratings International Limited (2011b) and CGAP (2011).
No. 83March 2013
Gabriel Davel
Regulatory Options to Curb Debt Stress
The U.S. subprime mortgage crisis in the mid-2000s
brought new focus on the risk of unsustainable
debt burdens to both the financial sector and the
real economy. This resulted in extensive reforms
to laws and regulations related to credit across
both Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) countries and other developed
countries. In a broad range of developing countries
and emerging markets, the past decade has seen
highly publicized cases of dramatic household-level
credit growth and increasing debt stress followed by
institutional failure and government intervention.1
South Africa represents an extreme case, where a
cycle of increasingly aggressive lending and over-
indebtedness in the consumer credit sector led to the
failure of a number of banks and contagion, which
affected the entire banking sector.
Increased debt stress can result in social unrest and
serious political repercussions. In Bolivia, protesters
with dynamite strapped to their bodies held central
bank staff hostage (Rhyne 2001). In Nicaragua, the
No Pago movement instigated violent street protests,
with the president labelling microlenders “usurers”
(Pachico 2009). Such actions can threaten financial
sector development. The recent debt-related fall-
out in India captured international headlines and
highlighted the extent to which debt stress can
serve as a political rallying point. It led, for instance,
to political support for repayment boycotts and
to extreme regulatory interventions by one state
government, and it undermined microlenders’ support
from governments, donors, and social investors.2
This Focus Note argues that it is preferable to
implement appropriate monitoring mechanisms and
regulatory interventions at an early stage in credit
market development, to detect potential debt stress
and prevent reckless lending practices, thereby
avoiding risks to financial markets, consumers, and
the regulator’s credibility.
It is based on the proposition that debt stress and
over-indebtedness (see Box 1 on terms used to
describe these phenomena and different household
credit segments) pose risks to credit market
development as well as to consumer protection—risks
that require a specific regulatory and policy approach.
Consumers in developing countries are gaining more
access to different forms of finance, from bank loans
and consumer credit to loans from microfinance
institutions (MFIs) and nonbank money lenders. Rapid
growth in lending from these different subsectors may
result in a rapid increase in debt stress, with defaults
affecting both bank and nonbank lenders. The paper
FOC
US
NO
TE
Box 1. Terminology: Debt Stress, Over-Indebtedness, Microcredit, and Consumer Credit
As used in this paper, the term “debt stress” refers to a financial condition of an individual, household, or market segment that is on the road to over-indebtedness. There is much debate over the definition of “over-indebtedness” and how it ought to be measured, especially where it implies judgment about how much credit is too much when the full range of individual circumstances may be difficult to ascertain. Accordingly, the term “debt stress” is used broadly to refer to a range of situations that may indicate a threat of debt-related crisis at the individual or market level.
This paper refers frequently to both “microcredit” and “consumer credit.” As a rough generalization, microcredit usually involves small loans to nonsalaried workers who operate informal “microenterprises.” In contrast, most consumer credit (e.g., credit cards or retailer finance) goes to salaried employees of formal sector enterprises. However, these general descriptions have many exceptions, and in practice there may be considerable overlap among the markets served by the different types of lenders. Consumer lenders may serve some unsalaried borrowers, and MFIs sometimes lend to salaried workers. Because of such overlaps, it is essential to look at the household lending market as a whole. Problems with consumer credit can affect microlending, and nonbank lending can affect banks.
2
aims to offer practical guidance to regulators3 and
policy makers who face such challenges.
As background for the policy and regulatory
proposals discussed in this paper, Section I offers a
brief overview of the dynamics of credit market cycles
and describes how the factors driving the growth of a
credit market may result in a credit bubble, followed
by increasing defaults and eventual contraction.
Understanding these dynamics is essential to
grasping the limitations of traditional prudential
supervision risk indicators and interventions in
identifying and dealing with the risks of debt stress
and over-indebtedness. We point out that when
a credit market is growing rapidly, the increased
supply of loans and high household liquidity may
disguise actual levels of debt stress: defaults may
be relatively low for a time, even when debt stress
may be reaching unsustainable levels. Regulators are
often unaware of the extent of debt stress until it is
too late to take preventative measures.
Sections II and III propose a policy and regulatory
approach for early-stage and high-growth credit
markets. This approach aims to address emerging
risks of debt stress without inhibiting the expansion
of financial access. While there is a potential trade-
off between these two policy goals, this paper argues
that a sensible strategy can find the right balance.
The main proposed measures, in general order of
importance, include the following:
• Implementation of specific measures to detect
potential debt stress at an early stage (when
monitoring defaults may not be sufficient)
• Regulation of lending practices that may create
incentives for reckless lending
• Rules requiring effective disclosure and complaints
handling by lenders
• Measures to improve lending practices, potentially
including guidelines on affordability assessments
or the oversight of agents or brokers
• Expansion of credit information sharing and
establishment of credit bureaus
These and other measures (see Table 1) will
be discussed in further depth in this paper,
highlighting a few key country examples. Further
country examples of each measure are provided
in Annex 1.
In implementing any of these measures, it is
essential to recognize that countries differ
substantially in their stage of credit market
development, profile of credit providers and
products, level of credit penetration, and regulator
capacity. There may also be substantial differences
in credit market development within the country.
For example, a certain population segment (e.g.,
civil servants or salaried workers) or geographic
area (e.g., urban centers) may be saturated while
others still struggle with basic financial access.
These factors affect the risk of debt stress as well
as the nature of the policy response. An overly
restrictive or prescriptive regulatory environment
may limit the ability of credit providers to introduce
innovative products or delivery channels. This in
turn can undermine credit market development
and strategies to increase access to finance. Thus,
the priority in early-stage markets should be on
monitoring early warning indicators; creating
enabling infrastructure, such as credit bureaus; or
removing legislative obstacles to lending.
It is similarly important to consider differences in
countries’ regulatory structures and institutional
mandates, which may limit regulators’ ability to
cover all relevant segments of the credit market.
Such limitations may make it challenging for any
single regulator to effectively manage debt stress
that results from activities in unregulated or under-
regulated segments of the market. Coordination
among regulatory agencies and efforts on the
policy front to close such gaps are essential.
3 For simplicity, this paper uses the term “regulator” to describe the authorities that regulate and supervise financial institutions in a particular country.
3
In the meantime, regulators should, at a minimum,
broaden their monitoring efforts to capture
potential spill-over effects from other segments of
the market that may increase overall debt stress.
I. Dynamics of Credit Cycles and Debt Stress in Expanding Markets
A systemic view of credit market cycles
The inherent dynamics of credit market development
can lead to cycles of credit growth and consumer
debt build-up followed by large- scale default and
contraction. These cycles have significant policy
and regulatory implications:
• Understanding this may help those involved
move beyond the competing ideologies that
blame over-indebtedness either entirely on
indulgent and irresponsible consumers or on
predatory and reckless credit providers.
• Understanding these cycles helps regulators detect
the level of debt stress relative to the level of credit
market development.
• Perhaps most importantly, understanding these
cycles is essential to crafting appropriate policy
and regulatory responses.
Table 1. Summary of Early-Stage Regulatory or Policy Interventions to Prevent and Address Debt Stress
Monitor signs of potential debt stress
Regulators can monitor trends in statistical indicators for potential debt stress and assess market practices that may aggravate the risk of debt stress. Early-warning indicators include rapid growth in individual institutions’ portfolios with a simultaneous rapid expansion in the number of lending institutions; concentration of lending to certain population segments (e.g., government servants/salaried workers); rapid growth in average loan size or loan term; increased loan rescheduling and refinancing; and increased arrears and default.
Regulate high-risk market practices
Regulators should address market practices that increase the risk of unsound or predatory lending.a For instance, payroll deduction facilities have led to debt stress in many countries, often among politically sensitive market segments such as government employees. Similarly, when collection methods are unregulated, the practices of predatory credit providers can become a political issue, even if only small numbers of people are affected. Unsolicited credit and automatic increases in credit limits are further examples of high-risk practices. Regulating such high-risk practices at an early stage can reduce the incentive for high-risk lending without unduly hindering responsible lenders.
Support credit bureaus Effective and inclusive credit bureaus add value in nearly every environment. In low-inclusion environments, improved credit information lowers the cost of credit assessment and loan origination and creates an impetus for growth. In a high-risk environment, it can help credit providers identify debt-stressed individuals, reducing credit risk in the market. Credit bureaus should include both positive (full-file) and negative data, and include both bank and nonbank lenders.
Support lender standards and ombudsman schemes by industry
Regulators can require that industry codes contain guidelines for responsible lending, including affordability assessment requirements. Regulators can also require that financial institutions establish internal complaints and recourse mechanisms and report complaints data to the regulator. Further, an industry-funded ombudsman scheme could provide a mechanism to handle consumer complaints and offer accessible redress, without requiring regulatory resources.
Foster consumer awareness Messages relating to household debt management and over-indebtedness risk should form part of any national consumer awareness and financial literacy campaign.
a. There is no single definition of “predatory lending,” a term that can encompass a range of misleading, manipulative, or abusive lending practices. John Hawke, Jr., defined this term and presented examples of a range of such practices in his statement to the U.S. House Committee on Banking and Financial Services in 2000. Morgan (2007) described predatory lending more generally as “a welfare-reducing provision of credit.” See Hawke (2000) and Morgan (2007).
4
4 This section applies to consumer credit markets and Minsky’s (1992) analyses of the swings in financial systems between robustness and fragility, with debt build-up followed by over-indebtedness and credit contraction, which in turn fuel extreme economic cycles. See also Kindleberger’s (2005) description of financial crises and credit cycles. Such credit cycles have received much attention since the global financial crisis, particularly as the basis for macroprudential (as opposed to microprudential) or counter-cyclical policies that operate to curb credit cycles. See, e.g., Bank of England (2009).
5 MFIs had access to relatively ample new sources of debt in Bosnia–Herzegovina, Pakistan, Nicaragua, and Morocco during the period (2004–2008) before their default and repayment crises. See Chen, Rasmussen, and Reille (2010). Leading up to the U.S. subprime crisis, the linkage between mortgage brokers and securitization enabled a similar pace of expansion through new capital sources.
Phases of expansion and contraction in credit markets
Cycles of growth and contraction are quite
predictable and have been observed in many
different market sectors.4 Recent cycles of debt
stress in lower income credit markets have
been preceded by high growth rates among
existing institutions, fed by rapid increases in
available commercial financing. Commercializing
microlenders have often scaled up (in both
overall portfolio and loan size) at the same time
as commercial banks have attempted to go
down market by providing smaller loans to either
businesses or consumers. Aggressive competition
among lenders for the same client base can saturate
market segments quickly. See Figure 1.
The typical phases of expansion and contraction
are as follows:
• Phase 1—Preconditions for expansion. A few
pioneer institutions develop cost-effective lending
methodologies to reach underserved or lower
access customer segments. This includes low-cost
models for client selection, loan disbursement,
loan administration, information technology, and
effective collection processes.
• Phase 2—Commercialization and expanded access
to funding. Demonstrated success attracts new
entrants. Distribution networks develop further,
often involving agent or broker networks and
aggressive incentive structures to drive growth.5
High returns attract commercial investors and
enable growth, which in turn requires rapid growth
Commodi�zeCommercialize
Access to loan capital
Distribu�on networkCommissions
Debt build-up
High liquidityLow defaults Defaults
Debt collec�on
Contrac�on
Escala�ng defaults
Bank failures … ?
•
•
•
Commodi�za�on and commercializa�ondrives strong growthHigh liquidity disguises debt stress→ defaults low When stress reaches cri�cal levels,defaults commence, leading tocontrac�on and escala�ng stress
Asset pric
es →
Asset prices →PHASE 1
PHASE 2
PHASE 3 PHASE 4
PHASE 5
Figure 1. Credit Market Cycle: From Expansion to Meltdown
5
in loan portfolio and market share to achieve
expected returns.
• Phase 3—Debt build-up with high borrower liquidity
and low defaults. As the market enters a phase
of rapid growth, competition could undermine
lending standards and processes. Borrowers may
have access to multiple loans from different lenders,
enabling them to “borrow from Peter to pay Paul.”
The high level of liquidity means that defaults may
remain surprisingly low for an extended period
even as overall debt levels increase.
• Phase 4—Escalating default and contraction.
Defaults start escalating, triggered by unsustainable
household debt levels and sometimes by external
shocks, such as economic slowdowns. Lenders
become alarmed, start cutting back on new credit,
and prioritize debt collection. This contracts
household liquidity, leading to escalation of defaults.
• Phase 5—Institutional failure and potential for
contagion. Default levels may affect several
lenders, including banks, whether as a result of
their own lending or as a result of providing loan
capital to retail lenders. Depending on the level
of bank exposure, this could result in bank failure.
Debt stress appears as a warning sign, but also as a
sign of the success of previous strategies for credit
expansion and financial inclusion. The challenge
lies in developing appropriate regulatory strategies
that deal proactively with the consequences of
increasing credit access, rather than trying to roll
back commercialization.
Causes of debt stress: Lender practices and borrower behavior
Regulations and policies must address the individual
behaviors that collectively contribute to the credit
cycle. The lending strategies and specific loan policies
adopted by individual lenders play a determinative
role in the credit cycle. Every lender effectively
determines the amount of debt that will develop in its
client base over time, through its selection of a target
market, growth targets, affordability assessment and
credit criteria, and loan officer incentives structure.
Certain lending methods, such as payroll-deducted
lending, unsolicited credit, or automatic/incremental
re-advances, will cause an increase in debt build-up
and can increase the risk of debt stress. (See Annex 2
for more on microcredit methods and risks.)
Traditionally, regulators assume that the risk of
default should keep lenders from providing further
loans to clients who are at risk of becoming over-
indebted. Unfortunately, several factors undermine
this assumption. A high-interest-rate environment,
or one that allows significant late payment penalties
or debt collection charges, creates incentives for
high-risk lending.6 As long as the return on increased
lending (including all interest, fees, and potential late
payment penalties on clients with irregular payment
patterns) is sufficiently high to offset the capital losses
on defaults, a lender can withstand a high level of
arrears while still maximizing its return across the total
portfolio. (See Annex 1 for variations in microcredit.)
High late-payment interest and penalties or debt
collection fees increase the profitability of lending
to clients who have a high likelihood of going into
arrears, creating an incentive to target borrowers with
weak repayment records.
Obviously, the “financial imprudence”7 of the
client base also plays a role in debt stress, as does
“desperation borrowing” by clients who rely on
loans to augment very low or unstable incomes.
However, research indicates that factors such as
reckless borrowing or borrowing with the intention
to default do not constitute a significant cause
of over-indebtedness.8 Low-income or vulnerable
households are quite likely to face situations
that cause additional borrowing in response to a
household crisis or external event (e.g., a reduction
in remittance flows). A final factor is that lenders
may exploit borrower vulnerabilities and behavioral
6 See, e.g., Gardner (2010).7 In the United Kingdom, e.g., credit counselors point to factors such as low financial literacy levels and cognitive biases in consumer choices
as underlying what may look like irresponsible behavior (over-borrowing, under-insurance); they cite such “financial imprudence” as a main factor in over-indebtedness (Disney, Bridges, and Gathergood 2008).
8 See, e.g., Disney, Bridges, and Gathergood (2008).
6
biases9 through misleading marketing or aggressive
sales techniques. Pre-existing high debt levels
can make households or consumer credit markets
much more vulnerable10 to adverse shocks, such
as job loss, business or crop failure, a death or
illness in the family, or divorce, that cause a sudden
reduction in household income or an unexpected
increase in expenses.11 The most damaging shocks
are those that affect a whole region or population
segment, such as a drought or a regional decline
in remittance income.
Table 2 provides an overview of different lender
practices that create perverse incentives and increase
the risk of unsustainable credit growth and unhealthy
business models. The regulatory interventions that
target these practices are discussed in detail in
“Section III. Regulatory and Policy Interventions.”
II. Early Warning Indicators and Monitoring
Keeping these dynamics in mind, market monitoring
is the necessary first step in any proactive and
integrated approach to curbing debt stress.
In this section we provide an overview of early
warning indicators and mechanisms regulators
can use to monitor debt stress. (The next section
explores regulatory mechanisms as well as market
infrastructure, such as credit bureaus, to mitigate
the risk of over-indebtedness. A complete list of
the monitoring and regulatory options is included
in Annex 3.)
Market monitoring focuses on indicators that
would help a regulator detect a risk of over-
indebtedness at an institutional or sector level,
9 For a survey of some of this behavioral research, see Schicks and Rosenberg (2011) at 16–17.10 E.g., already increased indebtedness in the microfinance markets in Bosnia–Herzegovina before the global financial crisis made the country
vulnerable and exacerbated the impact of the financial crisis and contributed to the repayment crisis (Leshner and Frachaud 2010).11 Research from the United Kingdom suggests that the three key factors that “expose households to the risk of excessive debt and other
financial problems are loss of employment (including the failure of a business), marital breakdown, and poor financial management by the household” (Disney, Bridges, and Gathergood 2008).
Table 2. Examples of Lender Practices That Increase the Risk of Debt Stress
Unsolicited/pre-approved credit
Unsolicited and pre-approved credit create a natural incentive for increasing debt levels among performing clients. This cycle terminates only when the client starts showing signs of debt stress. Automatic increases in loan sizes or credit limits have a similar effect.
Payroll deductions Permitting loan repayments to be deducted directly from salaries undermines the lender’s incentive to assess the borrower’s total level of debt, including loans from lenders without payroll deduction facilities. Instead, it creates an incentive to lend to the maximum deduction allowable.a
Penalties on arrears Excessive late payment penalties create an incentive to lend to clients with existing high debt levels.
Hidden fees and charges/weak disclosure
Hidden fees and charges and weak disclosure undermine clients’ ability to assess the repayment obligations and manage their own debt commitments.
Loan officer, agent, or broker commissions
High agent or broker commissions create an incentive for aggressive loan origination. The position is aggravated when commission structures do not penalize poor loan quality or subsequent default.
Unregulated debt collection practices
Unregulated debt collection enables predatory lenders to use coercive pressures to enforce repayment and avoid default, even when clients are over-indebted.
No or inadequate credit information sharing
In the absence of credit bureaus, lenders have insufficient information on the total debt levels of applicants. Negative-only bureausb or bureaus that cover only bank credit undermine the effectiveness of credit bureau information.
a. Any mechanism that provides lenders a preference to collect directly from a borrower’s bank account for a specific category of lender would have the same adverse outcome. Preferential deductions for credit insurance policies, either from salaries or from bank accounts, are similarly damaging.
b. Negative-only information results in the lender not having access to information on all the loans that are outstanding and thus being unaware of an increase in borrowing until the borrower starts defaulting.
7
rather than only at the individual household level
(U.K. Task Force on Tackling Over-Indebtedness
2003). Traditional indicators, such as the aggregate
debt-to-income ratio or the level of arrears in
individual institutions, are often misleading and
may not provide an accurate indication of the
extent of over-indebtedness in the market. Early
warning indicators and other proactive monitoring
mechanisms can reduce both risk to the financial
system and risk to regulators’ credibility.
Limitations of traditional indicators
Traditionally, a low level of arrears is seen as a
strong indicator of low debt stress. However, high
household liquidity created during a phase of
expansion and growth and rapidly increasing loan
portfolios and client numbers (often coinciding with
new lenders entering the market)12 can disguise the
level of debt stress. Furthermore, if a portfolio with
a mix of small and large loans is not disaggregated
by loan size and client segment, household debt
problems will show up in regulatory reports only
when a very large number of clients are already
over-indebted.13
There are similar weaknesses in other macro-level
indicators traditionally used by regulators. The
aggregate debt-to-income ratio is often used as
a measure of indebtedness, yet it may be quite
misleading. The profile of the underlying debt (the
mix between long- and short-term debt and mix
between small and large loans) in any particular
country has a huge impact on the interpretation of
the debt-to-income ratio. The core of the problem
is that the debt–to-income ratio is based on the
amount of debt, rather than the debt servicing
commitment or the number of consumers affected.
When the average repayment term of the loan in
a country or portfolio is shorter, a low debt-to-
income ratio will mask the true debt stress (the
debt servicing ratio is a better indicator).
A general weakness in traditional indicators is the
extent to which aggregated indicators or national
averages are used. Disaggregated statistics and
the trends in these statistics for different income
groups, different regions, or different employment
categories can help to detect localized stress and
prevent problems from being hidden in national
averages.
Early warning indicators
A range of potential indicators can complement
traditional credit risk indicators and provide more
effective early warning when the risk of debt stress
is increasing. The most generally applicable include
the following:
• Rapid growth—High growth of a lender’s portfolio
over several years,14 especially when concentrated
in particular market segments, should be cause for
further investigation. The risk is increased when
the growth takes place across several institutions
with a large number of new entrants targeting the
same market segment. These risks are exacerbated
if there is no credit bureau system through which
credit providers can assess an applicant’s overall
exposure to all lenders and no requirement to do
affordability assessments.
• Increases in loan size/term and refinancing—A
rapid increase in lenders’ average loan size and
loan term combined with increased refinancing
and rescheduling indicate that client debt levels
are increasing. When the level of refinancing and
rescheduling starts increasing, it is likely that debt
stress has reached an advanced stage.
12 Low-income households may make significant sacrifices to repay loans. For such borrowers, high levels of debt stress (measured by unacceptable sacrifices or compromises to welfare) would not show up in arrears. In such circumstances, household surveys may be an important way to measure debt stress (Schicks 2011a).
13 For further discussion of the weakness of arrears reports as an indicator of existing debt stress, see Schicks and Rosenberg (2011).14 There is no rule of thumb to judge what rate of growth is too high without detailed understanding of context. Note that in the case of
microcredit, Gonzalez (2010) finds that growth rates of individual lenders show little correlation with subsequent collection problems. However, risk appears to increase when either aggregate market growth or microcredit market penetration is very high.
8
• Increasing debt collection activity and abusive
debt collection practices—These practices suggest
a high level of debt stress, as does an increase in
the volume of court cases related to debt.15
None of these signals alone is a certain sign of
over-indebtedness. However, a sustained upward
trend in more than one of these early-warning
indicators may well signal that regulators should
gather additional information to assess the extent
of the problem.
A common challenge in many early-stage credit
markets is limited availability of national statistics
and limited resources to commission further studies
or surveys. Even where this is the case, there are
often alternative sources of information, such as
financial statements from regulated entities, credit
bureau reports, complaints records,16 judgment
statistics, or less formal sources, such as media
reports. Regulators should engage with the
national statistics office, department of justice,
and other authorities to ensure that appropriate
information17 is collected that would help detect
debt stress.
Monitoring mechanisms
In countries at an early stage of credit market
development or with limited formal credit activity,
substantial investment in monitoring mechanisms
may not be warranted. However, when the level of
credit activity increases or when the early-warning
indicators raise alarms, deeper investigation and
more systematic monitoring may be justified.
Different mechanisms that may be considered
include the following:
• Special indebtedness report—If there is a concern
about debt stress but no clear statistical evidence,
it may be appropriate to commission a special
report by a research firm or task team to assess
the level of debt stress based on a detailed review
of relevant statistics, interviews with lenders, and
similar activities. Statistical analysis will help clarify
the extent of the problem and determine the level
of action that may be required. Such a report has
the added value of alerting the industry to the
regulator’s concern.18
• Special lender reporting—The regulator can require
regulated entities to submit a special report on their
practices in assessing clients’ levels of indebtedness,
and on their views on the extent of debt stress in
each entity’s client base, trends in arrears, and
causes thereof. This both informs the regulator and
raises awareness among lenders, without placing
high demands on regulatory capacity.
• Onsite inspection reports—A specific section on
lending practices and on indicators of potential
debt stress can be included in onsite inspection
reports prepared for prudentially regulated
entities.
• Test of a sample of lender files—The regulator could
choose to evaluate a sample of client files at high-
risk lenders19 to assess the extent of debt stress
in the lenders’ client base. Such an assessment is
demanding and would be justified only if there is
a high level of concern. It is most effective if there
is an independent source of information on client
indebtedness, such as through a credit bureau
15 The volume of cases is a more significant indicator than the monetary value of debt-related judgments. Where debt collection happens primarily outside of courts, regulators can look to sources such as complaints reports or the media.
16 The next section describes two early-stage interventions that can be a source of early-warning indicators while serving other important purposes: (i) setting up systems to receive complaints or complaints reports and (ii) establishing or improving credit reporting infrastructure and participation.
17 Relevant information could include (i) information on the amount of monthly repayments on debt relative to income, (ii) the number of agreements, (iii) the types of agreements, and/or (iv) the name and type of the lenders involved. It is important that aggregated statistics specify the number of consumers and number of agreements that are involved, and not only the aggregate monetary values. Information on monthly debt-servicing commitments is more important than information on the total amount of debt outstanding. In addition, statistics on the components of the debt (differentiating among principal debt outstanding, accumulated interest, fees, and debt collection or legal charges) would be useful.
18 In South Africa, both a detailed credit bureau report and a credit provider report are published quarterly, and both reports include statistics that can serve as indicators of debt stress.
19 High-risk lenders typically would be identified by the appearance of the early-warning indicators in their portfolios, a large number of debt collection cases in the courts, high numbers of complaints filed against them, etc.
9
system. (South Africa’s Micro-Finance Regulatory
Council regularly performed such assessments.
See Box 2.)
• Debt stress task team—The regulator may consider
establishing a task team that includes industry
representatives and economists, with a mandate
to assess debt stress and to develop proposals.
In addition to raising industry’s awareness of the
regulator’s concerns, this high-profile step can help
the regulator develop an appropriate regulatory
response while managing political pressure.20
• Annual debt-stress reviews—In high-growth
markets, the regulator may consider including a
special section in its annual reports that assesses
and comments on the level of debt stress.
• Loan officer survey—Debt stress could be included
as one of the topics in a periodic survey of senior
loan officers of banks and other lenders to assess
and analyze loan officers’ views on key topics. This
is of most value if done annually, to reveal trends.
• Credit bureau reporting—Credit bureaus could
be required to analyze their data and produce
reports on trends in debt stress and other relevant
information.
• National survey—Where national surveys are
conducted on more general information, the
20 Such task teams have been used in the United Kingdom, United States, and South Africa, among others.
The following are examples of the formulation of affordability assessment requirements.
European Union, Consumer Credit Directive, Article 8
Obligation to assess the creditworthiness of the consumer
“1. Member States shall ensure that, before the conclusion of the credit agreement, the creditor assesses the consumer’s creditworthiness on the basis of sufficient information, where appropriate obtained from the consumer and, where necessary, on the basis of a consultation of the relevant database.”
“2. Member States shall ensure that, if the parties agree to change the total amount of credit after the conclusion of the credit agreement, the creditor updates the financial information at his disposal concerning the consumer and assesses the consumer’s creditworthiness before any significant increase in the total amount of credit.”
South Africa, National Credit Act
“80. (1) A credit agreement is reckless if, at the time that the agreement was made, or at the time when the amount approved in terms of the agreement is increased, . . .
(a) the credit provider failed to conduct an assessment . . . irrespective of what the outcome of such an assessment might have concluded at the time; or
(b) the credit provider, having conducted an assessment . . . , entered into the credit agreement with the
consumer despite the fact that the preponderance of information available to the credit provider indicated that—(i) the consumer did not generally understand
or appreciate the consumer’s risks, costs or obligations under the proposed credit agreement; or
(ii) entering into that credit agreement would make the consumer over-indebted.”
[Over-indebtedness is defined elsewhere in the Act.]
Australia, National Consumer Credit Protection Act
“131(2) The contract will be unsuitable for the consumer if, at the time of the assessment, it is likely that:
(a) the consumer will be unable to comply with the consumer’s financial obligations under the contract, or could only comply with substantial hardship, if the contract is entered or the credit limit is increased in the period covered by the assessment”
Mexico, Law on Transparency and Ordering of Financial Services of 2007(amended through 2010) (unofficial translation)
Art. 18 Bis 1. Entities shall only issue credit, loans or revolving credit card financing upon an assessment of the viability of repayment by the applicants, based on an analysis of quantitative and qualitative information that enables the determination of their credit worthiness and ability to repay.
Box 2. Statutory Requirements to Consider Affordability
10
regulator could advocate for a series of questions to
be included that gather information on household
debt levels and indicators of debt stress.21
III. Regulatory and Policy Interventions
There is a potential trade-off between regulatory
mechanisms aimed at curbing over-indebtedness
and the requirements of an effective financial
inclusion strategy. A strategy that aims to prevent
over-indebtedness, but sets such high standards
that low-income people and people with irregular
sources of income do not qualify for credit would be
counterproductive.22 However, there is ample room
for a sensible strategy that strikes a balance between
these policy goals. Such a strategy would curb the
practices of over-aggressive and predatory credit
providers, but should have little impact on lenders
that target clients who have limited access to finance
or lenders that apply sensible procedures to prevent
their clients from becoming over- indebted. Such a
strategy would simultaneously curtail unsustainable
growth in consumer debt and increase the stability
of the credit market. It is critical that regulators
have a solid understanding of the different lending
methods and business models in the market.
The U.S. subprime crisis has given momentum
to regulatory and policy reform in this area, with
several countries implementing specific measures
to curb over-indebtedness. There is no “standard
set of measures” to address over-indebtedness.
The EU Consumer Credit Directive 2008/48/EC
(European Union 2008)23 is a useful benchmark
and includes articles on affordability assessments
(article 8), credit bureaus and credit information
exchange (article 9), and disclosure (articles 4–7,
among others). The G-20 High-Level Principles on
Financial Consumer Protection and the companion
report from the Financial Stability Board are likely
to lead to further guidelines in this area.24
A comprehensive regulatory strategy would also
deal with a number of related matters, such as
disclosure, consumer complaints and redress,
limitations on unsolicited credit, and debt
enforcement rules or debt counseling.
As a first regulatory priority, this paper proposes
curbing market practices that can create an
incentive for reckless lending. These are market
practices that undermine a lender’s incentive to
assess affordability or that increase the profitability
of irresponsible lending. This includes practices such
as direct deduction of loan repayments from salaries,
excessive late payment penalties, or abusive debt
collection practices. A second priority is to limit
practices that encourage unsustainable growth in
credit markets, such as unsolicited credit offers,
negative option marketing,25 or automatic increases
in credit limits. It is also important to improve
market infrastructure through credit bureaus and
information sharing. Once these mechanisms are in
place, compulsory affordability assessments could be
viewed as a follow-on intervention in the event that
perverse incentives remain. However, as discussed
below, it may be best not to prescribe quantitative
limits (i.e., specific debt service-to-income ratios).
Several regulatory and nonregulatory measures
that promote consumer protection and improved
market conduct more broadly can also contribute
to a comprehensive strategy for addressing debt
21 See footnote 19 for examples of relevant information.22 E.g., strict collateralization requirements or absolute quantitative affordability assessment thresholds may serve as an unwarranted barrier to
lower income consumers. Other policy interventions, such as interest rate caps or limits on multiple borrowing, can have similarly unwanted consequences.
23 See also Ramsay (2004).24 The current G-20 High-Level Principles on Financial Consumer Protection do not deal with over-indebtedness explicitly, but do
include disclosure, transparency, and affordability/suitability assessments (“financial service providers should assess the financial capabilities, situation and needs of their clients before agreeing to provide them with a product or service”). The Financial Stability Board’s consultation document on consumer finance protection deals extensively with both over-indebtedness and responsible lending.
25 Negative option marketing offers a product in such a way that the consumer’s failure to respond is treated as acceptance, thus requiring the consumer to affirmatively reject the offer.
11
stress. For example, debt stress can be reduced
through mandatory disclosure of certain types of
information that will help prospective borrowers
better understand their repayment obligations and
total loan costs so they can make informed decisions
on their level of debt and repayment commitments.
Similarly, rules that require and set standards for
effective complaints handling can help with both
detection and monitoring of debt stress levels and
provide relief for potentially debt-stressed clients.
Effective disclosure and recourse are necessary for
a comprehensive approach, but alone they are not
sufficient to address the risk of over-indebtedness.
Interventions aimed at building consumer financial
capacity around debt management also are an
important complement, but only in combination
with more robust measures targeting lender
practices.26 Mechanisms such as debt counseling
are unlikely to be justified except in fairly developed
markets with significant debt stress.
Many countries have implemented interest
rate controls as part of a package of regulatory
interventions to curb debt stress, with the intention
to prevent borrower exploitation or to avoid a
high interest rate environment that can incentivize
over-aggressive lending. However, a simplistic
or misguided approach to interest-rate control
can do damage to credit supply and can limit
access to finance. These disadvantages may well
outweigh its benefits in curbing over-indebtedness.
Limits on multiple loans or limits on loans from
multiple lenders similarly can do damage by stifling
competition and market development.
Finally, industry codes of conduct and similar self-
regulatory mechanisms may be a useful starting
point in early-stage markets, avoiding extensive
regulatory prescription when the risk of debt stress
is still low. Such mechanisms bring attention to
lending practices and standards, which is a useful
starting point in developing markets.
The following section provides an overview of
different measures that could be considered in
regulating over-indebtedness. Annex 1 offers more
detail that includes country examples.
Incentive failures
The priority must be to identify and regulate market
practices that create incentives that increase
the risk of over-indebtedness. This includes
practices that reduce a lender’s incentive to do an
affordability assessment, or elevate fees to a level
where they increase the profitability of lending to
consumers who are already, or are at immediate
risk of becoming, highly indebted. Examples
include payroll deduction facilities (of which public
servants are often a primary target, increasing the
risk of political backlash), preferences in debit order
processing,27 coercive debt collection practices,28
and excessive late payment penalties and debt
collection fees.
Potential regulatory interventions in these areas
may include the following:
• Imposing limits and/or conditions on the collection
of loan repayments through payroll deduction
facilities (examples include Kenya, South Africa,29
the Philippines, and Brazil).
• Limiting late payment penalties or debt-collection
charges, to avoid incentivizing high-risk lending
and to prevent predatory lenders from applying
extreme penalties.
• Rules on the conduct of debt collectors to
curb abusive practices, such as were part of the
26 This paper does not address the broader topics of disclosure, complaints handling, and consumer awareness and financial capability interventions beyond noting their relevance in preventing debt stress.
27 Payroll deductions and debit orders can be convenient for customers and can lower the costs of lending/borrowing; however, experience has shown they can be subject to significant abuse.
28 For instance, the use of threats, harassment, or public shame, such as was seen in Andhra Pradesh, India, where there were allegations of a spate of suicides among microborrowers.
29 Treasury regulations passed in 2001 placed limits on payroll deductions from government employee salaries, as well as on the interest that may be charged on such loans. For more information, see Republic of South Africa Public Service Commission (2007).
12
regulatory response in India following the crisis in
Andhra Pradesh.
Market practices that encourage unsustainable credit growth
Certain market practices, individually and in
combination, lead to unsustainable credit growth
and create an environment in which debt stress
is likely to increase over time. These include
negative-option marketing, unsolicited credit,
automatic increases in credit limits, and automatic
and incremental re-advances or refinancing.30 In
high-growth markets, loan officer commissions and
agent and broker commissions often play a part in
unsustainable credit growth. India, South Africa,
and Nicaragua are some of the countries in which
the aggressive lending practices of loan officers
and sales agents contributed to increased debt
stress, leading to instability, political intervention,
or both (see Annex 2 for details).
Potential regulatory measures include the following:
• Prohibit unsolicited credit and negative-option
marketing31
• Limit or regulate automatic increases in credit limits
(e.g., increases in overdrafts or credit facilities) or
on incremental re-advances (e.g., by requiring
demonstrated repayment capacity through a new
affordability assessment)32
• Review commission structures for loan officers and
agents, potentially imposing limits or requiring
that commissions be linked to loan origination
standards and loan performance33
• Introduce explicit accountability of lenders for the
conduct of their agents34
Compulsory affordability assessments
An increasing number of countries have introduced
a statutory requirement to perform affordability
assessments in recent years.35 The EU Directive
on Consumer Credit (2008) requires affordability
assessments on all consumer credit agreements
(including increases in credit limits). Similar
requirements have been introduced in the United
States (in respect to mortgages through the Dodd-
Frank Act), in South Africa, Mexico, Australia, and
Uganda, among others.
Affordability definitions typically consist of the
following components:
• A requirement to perform an affordability
assessment, with exemptions for cases where it
is not considered appropriate or where different
standards may be applied, e.g., for educational
loans,36 and standards that accommodate
the specific characteristics of group-based
microcredit37, 38
• A definition of the sources of income and expenses
that should be considered when doing the
assessment
• An indication of minimum information to be
considered, i.e., payslips or credit bureau records
30 Many microcredit methodologies control risk by starting with very small loans, and then increasing loan sizes by a set amount as borrowers successfully repay each prior loan. However, in the absence of sound affordability assessment, this practice entails a high risk that clients will eventually take loans that exceed their comfortable repayment capacity.
31 See, e.g., South Africa’s National Credit Act (2005).32 See, e.g., South Africa’s National Credit Act (2005); in Mexico, financial institutions may increase credit lines only for customers who have a
good repayment history.33 In Peru, e.g., financial institutions must ensure that performance incentive structures for personnel do not conflict with the management of
over-indebtedness risk. SBS Resolution 6941-2008.34 Problems in agent and broker behavior often result from limited oversight and accountability by the principal lender. If accountability is
improved, direct regulation may not be required. This approach has been followed in Brazil, Colombia, and the European Union, among others (Dias and McKee 2010). The Basel Core Principles (revised 2012) also require that banks be accountable for outsourced services.
35 Ramsay (2004) describes a range of mechanisms that different countries either have introduced or are considering.36 Note, however, that student loans are covered in some regulations, e.g., those issued by the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.37 In many group microlending models, group members play an important part in assessing an individual member’s repayment capacity.38 For lenders making very short-term loans (e.g., three months or less), the requirement of an affordability assessment before every loan might
be relaxed somewhat for loans to borrowers with a good repayment history.
13
(such standards should be sufficiently flexible to
be applicable to people with informal sector or
irregular sources of income)
Box 2 summarizes the legal definitions that are
applied in a few countries.
Pressure is often put on regulators to define a
specific “affordability percentage” (e.g., a ceiling
on the allowable borrower debt-service-to-income
ratio). However, there are strong arguments against
such an approach. The primary concern is that
the level of affordability strongly depends on the
target market of each lender, its credit risk policy,
and the length of the repayment term. It is difficult
to define one specific percentage that would be
appropriate for all types of lenders, all types of
products,39 and all the different segments of the
potential client base. In general, this should be left
to the discretion of each lender.
Disclosure and transparency40
Effective disclosure requirements improve the
borrower’s capacity to assess total loan costs and
the level of repayment commitments relative to
expected income. A key requirement is disclosure
of the aggregate periodic repayments, including
all fees and charges. This should preferably be
compulsory and standardized in advertisements,
marketing leaflets, and pre-agreement disclosures.41
Box 3 illustrates the impact of add-ons and fees
and the implications of weak disclosure.42
The method and timing of disclosure is of equal
importance. Regulators may prescribe the timing
of disclosures (i.e., sufficiently before a contract),
the provision of a clear summary sheet highlighting
the most important terms and conditions, and
disclosure in advertisements and leaflets as
well as oral explanations accompanying written
39 A long-term loan should, e.g., be subject to a lower limit than what may be tolerable for a short-term loan.40 For more detailed discussion, see Chien (2012).41 Clear disclosure of the full cost of credit in advertising and marketing material is critical. This allows the consumer to consider full cost of
the repayment obligations before engaging with credit providers and to obtain independent advice if needed, avoiding being pressured to making decisions while in discussion with loan officers.
42 Research has shown that borrowers in some settings have found annual percentage rate less useful than other disclosure methods (e.g., total cost of credit, the cumulative amount to be paid over the life of the loan) (Chien 2012).
Example: A $500 loan is repayable at 33% over 12 months. Lender charges the following additional fees: (a) 15% loan administration fee, (b) 10% credit life insurance, and (c) 10% penalty interest on late payments.
Note: These add-ons are typically excluded from the advertised loan repayment amount, making it impossible for the consumer to understand the impact before taking on the product.
Monthly loan repayment without add-ons 49.48Monthly loan repayment with add-ons 61.86Monthly loan repayment with add-ons and penalty interest 68.04
The installment amount thus increases by 25% as a result of add-ons, and by a further 10% if the
loan goes into arrears. Therefore, a loan that looks affordable based on the nominal repayment may be difficult to repay after additional charges. Penalty interest means that the repayment will increase exactly when the client may be having financial problems, making it even more difficult to recover. In practice the lenders with the worst standards resort to the most extreme fees and penalties.
Regulatory proposals: (a) A simple pre-agreement disclosure form that includes total monthly repayment, inclusive of all fees, charges, or add-ons; (b) advertisements, brochures, or leaflets must show the repayment, including all add-on charges, and must show penalties; and (c) disclosure of and limits on penalty interest, penalty fees, or debt collection charges.
Box 3. The Effect of Add-Ons and Penalty Interest on Loan Repayments
14
disclosures. For instance, Ghana’s Borrowers
and Lenders Act of 2008 requires all lenders to
use a prescribed disclosure sheet that presents
the annual percentage rate (APR), total cost of
credit, and a repayment schedule and highlights
whether certain risky conditions apply. This form
includes plain-language explanations. South Africa
requires credit providers to disclose the cost of
credit in advertisements and brochures and to
provide consumers with a pre-agreement quote.
Other regulators, such as the Superintendency
of Banks and Insurance (SBS) in Peru, require
lenders to regularly submit information about the
pricing of products, which SBS then publishes to
allow for cost comparisons. Disclosures should
also include contact information for internal
complaints mechanisms and external ombudsman
schemes.
Financial literacy, debt advice, debt counselling, and debt restructuring
Increased consumer awareness and financial literacy
and education interventions related to debt stress
are designed to make borrowers more cautious
when taking on loans. They also aim to help them
deal with the consequences of over-indebtedness
and debt stress. This may be limited to general
warnings on over-indebtedness and the value
of good borrowing habits (for an example, see
Figure 2) or could extend to topics such as budgeting
and financial planning. As noted, such interventions
should be seen only as a complement to robust
regulations aimed at responsible lender behavior.
Debt advice and debt counseling provide services
to consumers who are already over-indebted. The
service may be limited to debt advice or advice on
budgeting and financial planning, or it can extend
into full debt counseling, assistance with debt
restructuring,43 and assistance with applications for
personal insolvency. Countries such as Malaysia
and South Africa have adopted slightly different
approaches,44 largely informed by the extent
of credit market development and the level of
debt stress in each. In the management of debt
stress, the United Kingdom has a rich institutional
experience involving public-sector institutions
as well as a large private-sector-funded debt
mediation mechanism.45
43 In this context, debt counseling and debt restructuring refer to a service that would help consumers negotiate with all the different credit providers to restructure debt. This normally would involve a restructuring of all loan obligations, potentially including interest reduction, extension of payment terms, or capital reductions. Such interventions are typically possible only if the powers are created through specific legislation.
44 In Malaysia in 2006, Bank Negara Malaysia set up the Credit Counseling and Debt Management Agency (Agensi Kaunseling dan Pengurusan Kredit [AKPK]), which provides free services to individuals. With the 2005 National Credit Act, consumers in South Africa could seek debt counseling from a network of private debt counselors registered with and regulated by the National Credit Regulator.
45 The Consumer Credit Counseling Service (CCCS) is a world leader in the provision of debt counseling and debt restructuring services. It is a registered charity that functions as an umbrella debt counseling service in the United Kingdom. It is primarily industry-funded and provides a free national telephone service as well as face-to-face counseling through regional centers. In 2011, CCCS provided debt advice assistance to 350,000 consumers (CCCS Research 2012; CCCS Statistical Yearbook 2011).
www.ncr.org.za 0860 627 627
3.
the dti
Figure 2. Advertisement from Consumer Awareness Campaign Conducted by South Africa National Credit Regulator
15
Credit bureaus and credit market infrastructure
A credit bureau adds significant value by giving
credit providers information that may help to
detect existing over-indebtedness, guard against
future over-indebtedness, and promote financial
inclusion.46,47 In addition, a credit bureau can lower
the credit provider’s costs of doing an affordability
assessment, enable the lender to reduce defaults,
and contribute to lower interest rates to consumers.
Finally, a credit bureau can be a powerful market
monitoring tool for the regulator.
To be effective, a credit bureau system should
include banks as well as consumer lenders,
microlenders, and other nonbank lenders, thus
ensuring that an inquiry would reflect all formal
sector debts. Furthermore, the system should
enable collection of both negative and positive
(full-file) information.48 A negative-only register is
of limited value and is particularly weak in providing
an early warning indicator when the level of debt
is increasing but default has not yet occurred.
Consensus is building that in a system where both
bank and nonbank institutions share in “full file”
information, credit bureau reporting can make
important contributions to financial inclusion.49
For example, credit bureaus in Mexico and South
Africa have expanded information collected to
include a much greater share of total lending to
the “base of the pyramid” (Lyman et al. 2011). As
a result of the reckless lending conditions in the
South African legislation, South African bureaus
have developed specific indebtedness indicators
in addition to the more usual credit scores.
Where informal lending is widespread, regulators
may look for innovative ways to facilitate more
comprehensive reporting, including by informal
lenders.50
Codes of conduct, self-regulatory bodies, and industry ombudsman schemes
Self-regulation through an industry code of
conduct can be an important starting point in
introducing basic lending standards, guidelines
for affordability assessments, and similar measures
to curb debt stress. The regulator may encourage
the establishment of a code of conduct through
its engagement with industry associations. In
some jurisdictions, supervisors formally oversee
implementation of self-regulatory initiatives. The
biggest challenge in a self-regulatory approach is
to monitor and enforce compliance.51,52 In addition,
even if self-regulation is implemented well, limited
coverage might limit its effectiveness—for example,
if a significant share of lending remains outside
the boundaries of self-regulatory arrangements.
Self-regulation could offer a pragmatic starting point
for an early-stage, developing market, but would
46 See, e.g., Chen, Rasmussen, and Reille (2010), at pp. 7–8.47 Credit bureaus can enable credit providers to identify potential clients from client groups that are excluded from financial services, by using
noncredit indicators, such as monthly bill payments or monthly rentals of a mobile telephone.48 “Negative-only” reporting refers to a credit reporting system in which data furnishers selectively report only adverse account information to
credit bureaus. This provides bureaus with a partial snapshot of account behavior, but fails to accurately depict the entire credit history. By contrast, “full-file reporting” includes this negative event information, along with many other indicators, such as “account balances, number of inquiries, debt ratios, on-time payments, credit limits, account type, loan type, lending institution, interest rates and public record data” allowing for a fuller and more accurate picture of credit risk (PERC 2009).
49 One study shows implementation of such a system correlating to increases in private-sector lending on the scale of 48–60 percent of a country’s gross domestic product (PERC 2009). Such growth, depending on its target markets, can improve access.
50 In Ghana, e.g., a proposal is being considered to have susu collectors report to a credit bureau via mobile phone. Susu collectors may be thought of as “mini mobile bankers” who circulate among villages and markets collecting deposits from women’s susu savings groups and individuals. Susu collectors have been regulated by the Bank of Ghana since 2011. In South Africa, a data category called “public domain data” enables broad participation in information sharing by both credit providers and other service providers.
51 The “responsible finance” movement, led by the Smart Campaign (www.smartcampaign.org) for the microfinance field, has given new impetus to voluntary adherence to a common set of lending standards; in addition, a third-party certification system to validate compliance was launched recently. Meanwhile, external reviews and assessments by social investors (e.g., microfinance equity funds) create strong incentives for compliance among institutions that depend on such funding.
52 In Senegal, e.g., the regulator mandates membership in the MFI industry association, which strengthens the incentive to comply with the code of conduct for that sector. South Africa offers an example of effective formalization of industry-specific ombudsman schemes through mandatory participation.
16
normally not be appropriate on its own in a highly
commercialized, rapidly expanding, or aggressive
lending environment.
Introducing an industry-funded ombudsman scheme
can compensate for some of the weaknesses of a
self-regulatory approach to the extent that it offers
accessible and effective mechanisms for customers
to resolve misunderstandings and complaints
with some objectivity. The effectiveness of an
ombudsman is enhanced if the mandate of the
ombudsman is formalized and reinforced by law
or regulation.
Cautionary note on interest rate controls and limits on multiple lending
The political reaction to over-indebtedness often
includes interest rate or margin controls, as was the
case in India, Nicaragua, and other countries. There
are arguments made for and against such a response.
On the one hand, a high-interest-rate environment
enables lenders to tolerate a higher level of default
and thereby creates an incentive to lend to clients
who may already be over-indebted. Some argue
that interest rate limits might discourage high-risk
or predatory lenders from entering the market and
would thus reduce lending pressure.
However, there are also several strong arguments
against imposing interest rate limits. Primary among
these is the high risk of unintended consequences.
Interest rate limits based on an all-inclusive APR
definition will always have a more negative impact
on small or short-terms loans.53 A blanket interest
rate cap could thus reduce the supply of small
and microenterprise loans—those that are most
needed from a financial inclusion and small/
microenterprise development perspective and
that may offer better value-for-money than
their informal-sector alternatives. If considered,
therefore, interest rate controls should be
1. Based on extensive empirical research on the
actual cost of lending
2. Structured to accommodate the reasonable cost
of origination and servicing of small loans and
microenterprise loans
3. “Tiered” by criteria such as size, term, or security
to accommodate the differences in cost and risk
among categories such as mortgages, credit
cards, unsecured loans, and microenterprise loans
Similar caution should be exercised regarding limits
on multiple lending. In the wake of various debt-
related crises in developing countries, considerable
attention has been paid to the extent to which
over-indebtedness is caused by clients borrowing
simultaneously from different lenders. The possibility
of multiple lending, however, is an inevitable
consequence of an expanding credit market and
can benefit consumers by providing a choice
among different credit providers. Furthermore,
any single lender might limit loan size well below
the borrower’s borrowing requirements and actual
repayment capacity. Placing a limit on multiple
loans or imposing a requirement that a borrower
may borrow from only one lender would undermine
competition and consumer choice. Finally, while
some studies find a correlation between multiple
lending and over-indebtedness, other studies find
no correlation or even a negative correlation in one
case (Schicks and Rosenberg 2012).
For these reasons, market-based regulations,
such as compulsory affordability assessments,
establishment of credit bureaus, and mechanisms to
address adverse incentives, should be implemented
before considering high-risk interventions, such as
limits on interest rates or limits on loan sizes or
loan terms.
IV. Prioritization, Sequencing, and Tailoring Interventions to Country Context
This Focus Note offers an overall policy and
regulatory framework for preventing and managing
debt stress, with select country examples. The
selection of a particular set of regulatory or policy
53 This is due to the inclusion of origination and servicing fees that may be high relative to the size of the loan.
17
options must be determined by the specific
circumstances in each country. In early-stage credit
markets with a low risk of debt stress, it would
be inappropriate to allocate substantial regulatory
resources to over-indebtedness. In contrast, the
position will be quite different in many middle-
income countries with rapidly expanding credit
markets, where attention to over-indebtedness
may be a regulatory priority.
Certain market practices have undesirable
consequences in nearly every environment.
Furthermore, certain institutional developments
(such as credit bureaus) are useful even in early-
stage credit markets, both from the perspective
of promoting sound lending practices and
facilitating increased access to finance. As has been
emphasized throughout this paper, the introduction
of a framework to monitor credit market activity and
detect early warning indicators should be a priority
in most environments. The experience of recent
years indicates that debt stress can not only harm
affected borrowers but it can also have serious
political repercussions and lead to inappropriate
interventions that can undermine many years of
credit market development. Ideally, regulators
should be the first to detect increasing debt stress
so they can implement a credible response before
the problem results in newspaper headlines. This
would protect borrowers and lenders, reduce the
reputational risk to the regulator, and dampen
the risk of politically motivated and ill-advised
interventions.
References
Anderloni, Luisa, and Daniela Vandone. 2008.
“Household Over-Indebtedness in the Economic
Literature.” Milan: State University of Milan,
December.
Arango, Miguel. 2006. “Evolución y Crisis del
Sistema Financiero Colombiano.” Bogota:
Comisión Económica para América Latina, June.
Australia. 2009. National Consumer Credit
Protection Act No. 134.
Banco Central de Chile. 2010. “Endeudamiento de
los hogares en Chile: Análisis e implicancias para
la estabilidad financiera.” Informe de Estabilidad
Financiera, First Trimester.
Bank of England. 2009. “The Role of Macro-
Prudential Policy: A Discussion Paper.” London:
Bank of England, November.
Bank of Uganda. 2011. Financial Consumer
Protection Guidelines. Kampala: Bank of Uganda.
Bankowska, Ewa. 2010. “Facing Over-indebtedness
at Partner Microcredit Foundation.” Washington,
D.C.: Smart Campaign, May.
Bateman, Milford, Dean Sinkovic, and Marinko
Skare. 2012. “Bosnia’s Microfinance Meltdown.”
Presented at American Economics Association
Annual Conference, Chicago, January.
Betti, Gianni, Neil Doumashkin, Maria Cristina
Rossi, Vijay Verma, and Yaping Yin. 2001. “Study of
the Problem of Consumer Indebtedness: Statistical
Aspects.” London: ORC Macro, October.
Biswas, Soutik. 2010. “Crisis Hits India’s Small
Loans Industry.” BBC News, 21 December.
Borio, Claudio, Robert McCauley, and Patrick
McGuire. 2011. “Global Credit and Domestic Credit
Booms.” BIS Quarterly Review, September: 43–57.
Burki, Hussan-Bano, and Mehr Shah. 2007. “The
Dynamics of Microfinance Expansion in Lahore.”
Islamabad: Pakistan Microfinance Network, June.
Burki, Hussan-Bano. 2009. “Unraveling the
Delinquency Problem (2008/2009) in Punjab—
Pakistan.” Islamabad: Pakistan Microfinance
Network, October.
Calem, Paul, Matthew Cannon, and Leonard
Nakamura. 2011. “Credit Cycle and Adverse Selection
Effects in Consumer Credit Markets—Evidence from
the HELOC Market.” Philadelphia: Federal Reserve
Bank of Philadelphia, Research Department, March.
18
Campbell, John Y., Howell E. Jackson, Brigitte C.
Madrian, and Peter Tufano. 2011. “Consumer
Financial Protection.” Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 25(1): 91.
Cardenas, Mauricio, and Alejandro Badel. 2003.
“La Crisis de Financiamiento Hipotecario en
Colombia: Causas y Consecuencias.” Washington,
D.C.: Inter-American Development Bank, October.
Center for Financial Inclusion at Accion. 2012.
“Summary of Client Protection in Bosnia and
Herzegovina.”Somerville, Mass: Accion International.
CGAP. 2010. “Andhra Pradesh 2010: Global
Implications of the Crisis in Indian Microfinance.”
Focus Note 67. Washington, D.C.: CGAP,
November.
Chen, Greg, Stephen Rasmussen, and Xavier Reille.
2010. “Growth and Vulnerabilities in Microfinance.”
Focus Note 61. Washington, D.C.: CGAP, February.
Chien, Jennifer. 2012. “Designing Disclosure
Regimes for Responsible Financial Inclusion.”
Focus Note 78. Washington, D.C.: CGAP, March.
Citizens Advice Bureau. 2005. “Can You Cancel
It? CAB/ECC Clients’ Experience of Cancellation
Rights in Consumer Contracts.” London: Citizens
Advice Bureau, December.
Colwell, Peter F., and Joseph E. Trefzger. 1995.
“Loan Underwriting Rules of Thumb.” Illinois Real
Estate Letter, Summer/Fall: 11–14.
Consumer Credit Counseling Service (CCCS)
Research 2012 and Statistical Yearbook 2011.
London: CCCS.
Davis, Polk & Wardwell, LLC. 2011. “SEC Issues
Final Rules Implementing Dodd-Frank Amendments
to the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.” New York:
Davis, Polk & Wardwell, LLC.
De Larosiere Group. 2009. “The High-Level Group
on Financial Supervision in the EU: Report.”
Brussels: De Larosiere Group.
De Mariz, Frederic, Xavier Reille, and Daniel Rozas.
2011. “Discovering Limits: Global Microfinance
Valuation Survey 2011.” New York: J.P. Morgan
Global Equity Research, July.
Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory
Reform. 2007. “Tackling Over-Indebtedness:
Annual Report 2007.” London: Department for
Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.
Dias, Denise, and Katharine McKee. 2010.
“Protecting Branchless Banking Consumers: Policy
Objectives and Regulatory Options.” Focus Note
64. Washington, D.C.: CGAP, September.
Disney, Richard, Sarah Bridges, and John
Gathergood. 2008. “Drivers of Over-Indebtedness.”
Nottingham: Center for Policy Evaluation.
Engel, Kathleen C., and Patricia A. McCoy. 2011.
“The Subprime Virus. Reckless Credit, Regulatory
Failure, and Next Steps.” Boston: Suffolk University
Law School, 9 March.
European Union. 2008. DIRECTIVE 2008/48/EC
on credit agreements for consumers. Brussels:
European Union.
Faruqee, R., and M. A. Khalily. 2011. “Multiple
Borrowing by MFI Clients: Current Status and
Implications for Future of Microfinance.” Dhaka,
Bangladesh: Institute of Microfinance.
Financial Stability Board. 2011. “Consumer Finance
Protection with Particular Focus on Credit.” Basel:
Financial Stability Board.
Forero, Efrain. 2004. “Evolution of the Mortgage
System in Colombia: From the UPAC to the UVR
System.” Housing Finance International, March.
19
Fortin, Mario, and André LeClerc. 2007.
“Determinants of Mortgage Indebtedness.”
Quebec: University of Sherbrooke, April.
Gardeva, Anita, and Elisabeth Rhyne. 2011.
“Opportunities and Obstacles to Financial
Inclusion: Survey Report.” Washington, D.C.:
Center for Financial Inclusion, July.
Gardner, Nick. 2010. “Banks Make Huge Profit
Margins on Penalty, Exception Fees.” News
Limited, 24 May.
Ghana. 2008. Borrowers and Lenders Act. Accra:
Government of Ghana.
Gonzalez, Adrian. 2008. “Microfinance, Incentives
to Repay, and Over-indebtedness: Evidence from
a Household Survey in Bolivia.” Columbus: Ohio
State University.
———. 2010. “Is Microfinance Growing Too Fast?”
Washington, D.C.: Microfinance Information
Exchange (MIX), June.
———. 2011. “Microfinance, Financial Crises, and
Fluctuations in Food and Fuel Prices.” Washington,
D.C.: MIX, March.
Gonzalez, Adrian, and Claudio Gonzalez-Vega.
2003. “Sobreendeudamiento en las microfinanzas
bolivianos, 1997–2001.” Columbus: Ohio State
University, Rural Finance Program, September.
Gonzalez, Adrian, and Emmanuelle Javoy. 2011.
“Microfinance and the Role of Policies and
Procedures in Saturated Markets and During
Periods of Fast Growth.” Washington, D.C.:
Microfinance Information Exchange and Planet
Rating, September.
Gravesteijn, Robin, Ging Ledesma, and Ben
Simmes. 2011. “Over-indebtedness.” Amersfoort:
Oikocredit, January.
Hawke, John D. 2000. “Statement of John D.
Hawke, Comptroller of the Currency, before the
U.S. House Committee on Banking and Financial
Services, on Predatory Lending.” Washington,
D.C.: U.S. House of Representatives, 24 May.
Hurst, Erik and Paul Willen. 2006. “Social Security
and Unsecured Debt.” Boston: Federal Reserve
Bank of Boston.
Igan, Deniz, and Heedan Kang. 2011. “Do Loan-to-
Value and Debt-to-Income Limits Work? Evidence
from Korea.” Washington, D.C.: International
Monetary Fund, December.
Jimeno, Pamela, and Christian Viancos. 2012.
“Raphael Bergoeing: ‘La Sbif supervisará a los
emisores de crédito no bancarios’.” La Tercera,
8 July.
Kamath, Rajalaxmi, and R. Srinivasan. 2009.
“Microfinance in India: Small, Ostensibly Rigid and
Safe.” Bangalore: Indian Institute of Management,
June.
Kappel, Vivien, Annette Krauss, and Laura Lontzek.
2010. “Over-Indebtedness and Microfinance—
Constructing an Early Warning index.” Zurich:
Center for Microfinance, University of Zurich,
December.
Kempson, Elaine. 2002. “Over-Indebtedness in
Britain: A Report to the Department of Trade and
Industry.” Bristol: University of Bristol, Personal
Finance Research Centre.
Kindleberger, Charles, and Aliber, Robert. 2005.
“Manias, Panics and Crashes.” Hoboken, New
Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Krishnaswamy, Karuna. 2007. “Competition and
Multiple Borrowing in the Indian Microfinance
Sector.” Chennai: Institute for Financial Manage ment
and Research, Centre for Microfinance, September.
20
Leshner, Sarah, and Pauline Frachaud. 2010. “Focus
on Bosnia and Herzegovina.” Blue News: Special
Edition—Over-indebtedness: 2.
Lyman, Timothy, Tony Lythgoe, Margaret Miller,
Xavier Reille, and Shalini Sankaranarayan. 2011.
“Credit Reporting at the Base of the Pyramid: Key
Issues and Success Factors.” Forum 1. Washington,
D.C.: CGAP and IFC, October.
Marulanda Consultores Ltda and DAI Mexico. 2011.
“Estudio ‘Microfinanzas en Mexico’.” San Jose,
Costa Rica: Calmeadow Foundation.
Maurer, Klaus, and Justyna Pytkowska. “Indebted-
ness of Microcredit Clients in Bosnia and
Herzegovina: Results from a Comprehensive Field
Study.” Frankfurt: European Fund for Southeast
Europe.
Meagher, Patrick. 2005. “Microfinance Regulation
and Supervision in South Africa.” College Park,
Md.: University of Maryland, IRIS Center, April.
Mexico. 2007. Law on Transparency and Ordering
of Financial Services (as amended). Mexico City:
Government of Mexico.
Micro-Credit Ratings International Limited. 2011a.
“Comments on the Recommendations of the RBI
Sub Committee of the Central Board of Directors
to Study Issues and Concerns in the MFI Sector.”
Gurgaon: M-CRIL, January.
———. 2011b. “M-CRIL Microfinance Sector
Review 2011: Anatomy of a Crisis (Executive
Summary).” Gurgaon: M-CRIL, November.
Minister of Finance, South Africa. 2000. Treasury
Regulations on Government Payroll Deductions.
Government Notice 3098 of 2000. Pretoria: Ministry
of Finance, South Africa.
Minsky, Hyman. 1992. “The Financial Instability
Hypothesis,” Working Paper No. 74, prepared for
Handbook of Radical Political Economy, edited by
Philip Arestis and Malcolm Sawyer. Aldershot, U.K.:
Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
MIX (Microfinance Information Exchange). 2011.
“Monitoring Industry Risk.” Presentation at SEEP
2011 Annual Conference, Washington, D.C.
Morgan, Donald P. 2007. “Defining and Detecting
Predatory Lending.” New York: Federal Reserve
Bank of New York, January.
Murphy, Robert G. 1999. “Household Debt and
Aggregate Consumption Expenditures.” Chestnut
Hill, Mass.: Boston College, March.
National Credit Regulator. 2009 “Over-
indebtedness.” Presentation at SEEP Annual
Conference, Washington, D.C.
Ng, Dennis. nd. “Making Sense of Home Loans.”
Singapore: Financial Planning Association of
Singapore.
Nicaragua. 2011. Law on the Promotion and
Regulation of Microfinance. Managua: Government
of Nicaragua.
OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency).
2008. “Comptroller Dugan Says CRA Not
Responsible for Subprime Lending Crisis.”
Washington, D.C.: OCC, 19 November.
OECD. 2011. G-20 High-Level Principles on
Financial Consumer Protection. Paris: OECD.
OFT (Office of Fair Trading). 2010. “Irresponsible
lending—OFT Guidance for Creditors.” London:
OFT, March.
Okeahalam, Charles C. 2001. “Structure and
Conduct in the Commercial Banking Sector of
South Africa.” Trade and Industrial Policy and
Strategy (TIPS) Annual Forum, Johannesburg,
South Africa.
Olteanu, Cosmin. 2011. “Over-Indebtedness
in Microfinance Case-Study of the Clientele of
Financiera CREAR in Los Olivos, Lima Norte, Peru.”
Geneva: Graduate Institute of International and
Development Studies, March.
21
Pachico, Elyssa. 2009. “’No Pago’ Confronts
Microfinance in Nicaragua.” New York: North
American Congress on Latin America, October.
Persson, Mattias. 2009. “Household Indebtedness
in Sweden and Implications for Financial Stability—
The Use of Household-Level Data.” Basel: Bank of
International Settlements, May.
Peterson, Christopher L. 2008. “Over-Indebtedness,
Predatory Lending, and the International
Political Economy of Residential Home Mortgage
Securitization: Comparing the U.S. Subprime Home
Mortgage Lending Crisis to Home Finance in the
United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan.” New York:
Social Science Research Council.
Picherit, David. 2009–11. “The Multiple Times of
Debt Bondage and Its Practices in Southern India:
Temporary Protection and Over-Indebtedness.”
Paris: Rural Microfinance and Employment.
Porteous, David. 2009. “Policy Focus Note 2:
Consumer Protection in Credit Markets.” New
York: Financial Access Initiative, July.
Ramsay, Iain. 2004. “Consumer Credit Regulation
as ‘The Third Way’?” Australian Credit at the
Crossroads Conference, Melbourne, 8–9 November.
Reille, Xavier. 2010. “The Rise, Fall, and Recovery
of the Microfinance Sector in Morocco.” Brief.
Washington, D.C.: CGAP, January.
Republic of South Africa Public Service Commission.
2007. “Report on the Indebtedness of Public
Servants.”
Republic of South Africa. 2005. National Credit Act
No. 34. Pretoria: Republic of South Africa.
Reserve Bank of India. 2011a. Circular on Bank
loans to Micro Finance Institutions—Priority Sector
Status. Mumbai: Reserve Bank of India.
———. 2011b. Monetary Policy Statement 2011–12:
Malegam Committee Recommendations. Mumbai:
Reserve Bank of India.
Reserve Bank of India. 2011c. NBFI-MFI Directions.
Mumbai: Reserve Bank of India.
Rhyne, Elisabeth. 2001. Mainstreaming Microfinance:
How Lending to the Poor Began, Grew and Came of
Age in Bolivia. Sterling, Va.: Kumarian Press.
Sapundzhieva, Ralitsa. 2011. “Geographic
Concentration of Lending in Bosnia and Herzegovina.”
Washington, D.C.: MIX Market, March.
Schicks, Jessica. 2010. “Microfinance Over-
indebtedness: Understanding Its Drivers and
Challenging the Common Myths.” Brussels:
Université Libre de Bruxelles, Solvay Brussels
School of Economics and Management, Center
Emile Bernheim.
———. 2011a. “From a Supply Gap to a Demand
Gap? The Risk and Consequences of Over-Indebting
the Underbanked.” Brussels: Université Libre de
Bruxelles, Solvay Brussels School of Economics and
Management, Center Emile Bernheim.
———. 2011b. “Over-Indebtedness of Micro-
borrowers in Ghana: An Empirical Study from a
Customer Protection Perspective.” Washington,
D.C.: Center for Financial Inclusion, November.
Schicks, Jessica, and Richard Rosenberg. 2011. “Too
Much Microcredit? A Survey of the Evidence on Over-
Indebtedness.” Occasional Paper 19. Washington,
D.C.: CGAP, September.
Shukla, Rajesh, Prabir Kumar Ghosh, and Rachna
Sharma. 2011. “Assessing the Effectiveness of Small
Borrowing in India.” New Delhi: National Council
for Applied Economic Research, Centre for Macro
Consumer Research.
Siringi, Samuel. 2010. “New Scheme Limits Civil
Servant’s Loans.” Daily Nation, 15 November.
Smart Campaign. 2012. “Avoidance of Over-
Indebtedness: Guidelines for Financial and Non-
Financial Evaluation.” Washington, D.C.: Smart
Campaign.
22
Stamp, Stuart. 2009. “A Policy Framework for
Addressing Over-Indebtedness.” Dublin: Combat
Poverty Agency, April.
Superintendencia de Bancos y Seguros de Peru.
2008. Resolution 6941-2008: Risk Management for
Over-Indebtedness of Small-Scale Borrowers. Lima,
Peru: Superintendencia de Bancos y Seguros de Peru.
Turner, Michael, Robin Varghese, Patrick Walker,
and Katrina Dusek. 2009. “Optimal Consumer
Credit Bureau Market Structure in Singapore.”
Chapel Hill, N.C.: PERC Results and Solutions, May.
U.K. Task Force on Tackling Over-indebtedness.
2003. “Second Report of the Task Force on
Tackling Over-indebtedness.” London: U.K. Task
Force on Tackling Over-indebtedness.
United States. 2009. Credit Card Accountability
Responsibility and Disclosure Act. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government.
———. 2010. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government.
White, Alan M. 2012. “Credit and Human
Welfare: Lessons from Microcredit in Developing
Nations.” Washington & Lee Law Review 69:
1093–139.
Wilson, Therese. 2008. “Responsible Lending
or Restrictive Lending Practices? Balancing
Concerns Regarding Over-Indebtedness with
Addressing Financial Exclusion.” The Future of
Consumer Credit Regulation: Creative Approaches
to Emerging Problems. Hampshire: Ashgate,
91–105.
Wisniwski, Sylvia. 2010. “Over-indebtedness:
Evidence, Causes and Consequences.”
Prague: European Fund for Southeast Europe,
24 September.
23
Annex 1. Detailed Comparative Supervisory, Regulatory, and Policy Interventions
Category of response
Examples of problems and concerns
Examples of relevant regulatory measures Country examples
Detection and monitoring
• Debt stress is often detected only by conventional microprudential techniques when it is already at an advanced stage, affecting large numbers of clients and possibly even threatening institutions.
• Many of the monitor-ing mechanisms that are normally part of prudential supervi-sion are ineffective.
• Identifypotentialearly-warning indicators and monitor trends.
• Produceanannualreportto assess the extent of debt stress and over-indebtedness.
• Improvenationalstatistical surveys by including appropriate debt-related questions.
• Includespecificchecklistsand procedures in bank supervision inspection programs.
• Conductregular“loanofficer surveys.”
• Conductspecialresearch.
Peru: SBS Resolution 6941-2008 requires financial institutions to regularly and annually test their small-scale borrower portfolio for signs of debt stress and risk of over-indebtedness, report this analysis to directors, and take corrective/preventive actions. The Risk Unit in each financial institution must report quarterly to directors, and this report must be made available to SBS.
South Africa: The National Credit Regulator is responsible for monitoring and reporting on levels of over-indebtedness and socioeconomic consequences.
Incentive structures Practices that
undermine incentive to assess affordability
Practices that increase profitability of reckless credit extension
• Payroll deduction facilities
• Debit order processing preferences
• Excessive late payment penalties
• Excessive debt collection fees
• Abusive debt collection practices
• Easy access to court orders, without consideration of lender behavior
• Imposelimitsonpayrolldeduction facilities or limit types of transactions that may be deducted from pay.
• Implementminimumstandards for debt collection conduct. Prohibit abusive conduct.
• Imposemaximumlimitson late payment penalties or debt collection fees.
• Implementminimumrequirements for access to court orders that force court inquiry, e.g., lender affordability assessments.
• Implementmaximumlimits on court orders related to debt (maximum statutory deductions as percentage of consumer income).
India: 2011 NBFC-MFI Directions (as amended) establish limits on margins; forbid penalties charged on late payments; and permit only noncoercive collection methods (cross-reference to Guidelines on Code of Fair Practices for NBFCs).
Uganda: 2011 Financial Consumer Protection Guidelines prohibit charging of unreasonable debt collection costs/expenses (§ 6[9]).
South Africa: The National Credit Act prohibits late payment penalties and defines reckless credit so that inadequate affordability assessments render the debt unenforceable, there is a code of conduct for debt collectors, and most types of payroll deduction facilities are prohibited.
Market practices that encourage unsustainable credit growth
• Heavy reliance on agents and brokers in loan origination, with high commission structures and limited oversight by principal lender
• Unsolicited credit and automatic increases in credit limits
• Automatic and incremental re-advances
• Prohibitunsolicitedcreditmarketing.
• Placelimitsonautomaticincrease in credit limits and re-advances, or introduce a requirement for prior affordability assessments.
• Introduceminimumstandards on a lender’s accountability for the conduct of its agents.
• Imposelimitsonthelevel and nature of commissions payable to agents and brokers.
South Africa: The National Credit Act (inter alia) prohibits negative option marketing and limits automatic credit line increases.
Mexico: Financial institutions may raise credit lines only for customers who have good repayment history and then only based on the customer’s explicit acceptance of the offer. All overdraft fees are also prohibited.
Peru: Financial institutions must ensure that the performance incentive structures for personnel do not generate conflicts of interest with the management of risks of over-indebtedness.
(continued)
24
Category of response
Examples of problems and concerns
Examples of relevant regulatory measures Country examples
Compulsory affordability assessments
• Extensive lending without any prior affordability assessment
• Imposeanobligationtoperform an affordability assessment.
• Imposeminimumstandards for affordability assessments.
• Prescribeminimumstandards for external documentation that must be considered in the course of an affordability assessment.
Mexico: Financial institutions may only issue credit based on an assessment of customer’s creditworthiness and ability to repay.
Uganda: Providers are prohibited from engaging in “reckless lending,” which is defined so as to require (inter alia) some form of affordability assessment.
Disclosure and transparency
• Consumers who do not adequately understand pricing or other conditions
• Prescribeinformationtobe disclosed, including standardized pricing terms, focusing on total cost of credit.
• Disclosurerulestoinclude advertising, brochures, and pre-agreement statements.
• Imposeplainlanguagerequirement in agreements.
South Africa: Standardized pre-agreement disclosure. Required disclosure in advertisements and brochures. Plain language requirements. Regular compliance audits and surveys.
Ghana: All lenders must disclose certain information in advance of entering a loan agreement, using a statutory disclosure form.
Peru: Information regarding pricing and other terms and conditions must be prominently displayed in branches and online. Providers must regularly report pricing information to regulator.
Interest rate controls CAUTION:
HIGH RISK OF REDUCING ACCESS TO FINANCE
• Extreme interest rates that create an incentive for reckless lending and attract unscrupulous providers into the market
• No competitive pressure to curb interest rates
** Problem: Unrealistic limits based on APR make small loans unprofitable and drive vulnerable clients to loan sharks. **
• Requirementtoperform an affordability assessment preferable to interest rate controls, as it directly addresses underlying affordability problems without the same unintended negative consequences.
South Africa: Credit providers are subject to a range of interest rate caps (depending on credit type) that are pegged to the bank reference rate, and that were designed following extensive empirical market research.
Limits on multiple loans NOT
RECOMMENDED
• Excessive borrowing from different lenders, leading to over-indebtedness
** Problem: Limits undermine competition, undermine expansion of options, undermine development of market. **
• Requirementtoperforman affordability assess-ment is a preferable intervention and more effective.
India: Under the 2011 NBFC-MFI Directions, no more than two NBFC-MFIs may lend to same borrower.
(continued)
Annex 1. Detailed Comparative Supervisory, Regulatory, and Policy Interventions (continued)
25
Category of response
Examples of problems and concerns
Examples of relevant regulatory measures Country examples
Debt counseling • Consumers who have no access to support or assistance and who become desperate
• Implementindustry-levelcomplaints and mediation mechanisms that borrowers can contact when they experience debt stress.
• Implementgovernmentor independent help-line to provide debt advice.
• Provideforadviceorassistance through pro bono legal services or NGOs.
South Africa: National Credit Act provided for registration of a network of debt counselors to assess levels of indebtedness and mediate between consumers and financial institutions for voluntary debt restructuring. Before debt enforcement, financial institutions must propose to consumers that they seek help from a debt counselor or another ADR body/agent.
Bosnia: BiH Central Bank has supported and endorsed the work of the nonprofit Center for Financial and Credit Counseling.
Codes of conduct and ombudsman schemes
• Weak lending practices
• An increase in aggressive or predatory practices
• No place where consumers can complain about poor conduct
• Workwithindustryto introduce code of conduct.
• Ensurethatcodeincludesappropriate minimum lending standards.
• Codeshouldincludesome monitoring and enforcement mechanisms.
• Supportestablishmentof an ombudsman structure or other forms of recourse.
India: RBI issued Guidelines on Code of Fair Practices for NBFCs and required each NBFC to adopt its own Code of Fair Practices.
South Africa: The 2004 Financial Services Ombud Schemes Act provides requirements for industry ombudsmen to obtain recognition under the Act. The National Debt Mediation Association has also developed a Credit Industry Code of Conduct to Combat Over-indebtedness.
Credit bureaus and credit information sharing
• Growth in prevalence of borrowing from different lenders or multiple borrowing
• No mechanism to assess total borrowing
• Createregulatorystructure for credit bureaus.
• Includebothbanksandnonbanks in information sharing.
• Sharebothpositiveandnegative information.
Nicaragua: A new microfinance regulator (CONAMI) is empowered to establish a credit bureau and all registered MFIs are required to consult this or another bureau.
India: Under the 2011 NBFC-MFI Directions, no more than two NBFC-MFIs should lend to the same borrower (focused on outcome without clarifying how to obtain information necessary to assess). All loans must be approved and disbursed from central location.
Azerbaijan: In 2011, the Central Bank expanded its Central Credit Registry to include NBFCs, including MFIs, and made reporting mandatory.
Annex 1. Detailed Comparative Supervisory, Regulatory, and Policy Interventions (continued)
26
Annex 2. Debt-Related Crises and Political and Policy Reactions in Diverse Developing Credit Markets
Bolivia (1998–1999)
• Crisis: As the small-scale credit market heated up, poor credit discipline and underwriting led to excessive lending, including unsustainable multiple borrowing.a Following a sharp economic downturn, rising defaults became highly politicized, with consumer groups even holding a financial regulator hostage. As loan repayment deteriorated, a major MFI and a number of consumer lenders failed.
• Response: The regulatory response included credit reporting and caps on maximum debt service for salaried workers (50% of salary).
South Africa (1999–2006)
• Crises: After 1992, moneylending and consumer finance expanded rapidly, often targeting salaried workers. Increasing defaults resulted in the failure of two of the banks that focused on low-income household lending. The contagion caused further banking stress, with a major mortgage lender being rescued.
• Response: High levels of indebtedness and abusive lending practices first led to the establishment of the Micro-Finance Regulatory Council in 1999 and to the prohibition of the payroll deduction facilities. It subsequently led to the introduction of the National Credit Act in 2005, with reckless lending rules, strict disclosure requirements (advertising and pre-agreement), regulation of credit bureaus, debt counselling, and regulation of interest and fees. The National Credit Regulator now regulates all consumer credit by both bank and nonbank lenders.
Colombia (1998–2000)b
• Crisis: Unprecedented growth in the housing mortgage market (reaching 8% of GDP) was based in part on a financing system (UPAC system) that became delinked from inflation and made mortgages more accessible through the 1990s. When a recession hit, the portfolio became unsustainable. Housing prices collapsed; the number of past-due mortgages soared from 3.3% in 1995 to 13.6% in 1998 and 18% in 1999. One specialized mortgage bank was nationalized, and others were merged or liquidated. Ultimately, this bank category was eliminated.
• Response: In the face of the crisis, the government required financial institutions to repossess houses no matter their value in relation to the outstanding loan. Then in 1999, the Constitutional Court declared the UPAC system unconstitutional and ordered Congress to pass a new housing law. In the longer term, new risk assessment models were imposed and judicial foreclosure was reformed.
Bosnia–Herzegovina (late 2008)c
• Crisis: Microfinance services expanded rapidly from 2006 to 2008. The repayment crisis coincided with the global financial crisis, which affected repayment capacity. MFIs responded by aggressively writing off loans. By the end of the crisis, the number of clients had returned to 2006 levels.
• Response: The response included creating a new credit bureau at the Central Bank with mandatory reporting from MFIs and other lenders. A nonprofit debt counseling center was set up in one of the cities with the highest concentrations of microlending.
Nicaragua (2009–2010)
• Crisis: In 2009, widespread reports of multiple borrowing and high levels of indebtedness began to appear. The No Pago movement was started, and people blocked highways, attacked MFIs, and harassed loan officers, demanding debt forgiveness and lower interest rates. With vocal support from the president, the movement became increasingly politicized and eroded the repayment culture.
• Response: A bill proposed strict interest rate limits, a six-month interest-free grace period, and repayment extensions of up to 4–5 years. In 2011 the legislature passed an MFI law and created the microfinance regulator (CONAMI).
India (2010)
• Crisis: A decade of microcredit expansion by diverse lenders including state-sponsored Self-Help Groups, banks, and MFIs, particularly in the state of Andhra Pradesh (AP), resulted in almost 32 million borrowing accounts (estimate end March 2011), just over 100 percent of the number of eligible “financially excluded” households (Micro-Credit Ratings International Limited 2011b). Analysis of the data in AP showed that some of these families had seven to eight loans from all sources and were spending a substantial portion of their gross income on debt service. Amid growing concern about over-indebtedness and reported coercive collection practices and borrower suicides, the state government responded with “draconian” regulations that made microcredit operations virtually impossible and threatened US$2 billion in loans in AP. In the face of ongoing political attacks, MFI loan repayments dropped to 10%, and banks stopped lending to microfinance companies.
• Responses: Following the AP legislature’s action, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) commissioned the Malegam Committee Report, which resulted in RBI regulations, including compulsory affordability assessments and limits on debt collection practices. A microfinance law that is pending before Parliament would further formalize the legal status of MFIs, including opening the possibility of offering deposit services if certain conditions are met. While collections in AP have remained very low for an extended period, the microfinance sector is recovering and beginning to grow again in other parts of India.
(continued)
27
Chile (2011)d
• Crisis: From 2000 to 2009, rates of household indebtedness grew from 35.4% to 59.9% debt-to-income, with particular expansion in credit cards and retailer financing. A mid-2011 scandal involving the fourth largest retail credit provider, La Polar, led to its collapse and politicized over-indebtedness.
• Response: The Central Bank has taken steps to extend supervision by the Superintendent (SBIF) to nonbank credit card issuers and retail credit providers.
a. “Multiple borrowing” refers to “clients borrowing from different types of lenders, simultaneously, to meet their diverse needs.” http://www.cgap.org/events/day-1-session-4-multiple-borrowing-%E2%80%93-definition-concepts-and-reasons
b. See Cardenas and Badel (2003); Forero (2004); and Arango (2006).c. See Bateman, Sinkovic, and Skare (2012).d. See Jimeno and Viancos (2012) and Banco Central de Chile (2010).
Annex 2. Debt-Related Crises and Political and Policy Reactions in Diverse Developing Credit Markets (continued)
28
Annex 3. Debt Stress in the Microcredit Industry
Lending methodologies in microcredit institutions pose
challenges to applying usual regulatory prescriptions,
e.g., a compulsory affordability assessment. Loans
to start-up microenterprises and to very poor
families would almost inevitably appear to exceed
the repayment capacity of the microentrepreneur
or family, particularly if the income expected from
the business is disregarded. In solidarity group loans
it could be both complex and costly to assess the
repayment obligations against the income sources
of the individual group members, particularly if an
individual’s liability for the repayments of other group
members is factored in. For those providing microcredit
and reaching financially excluded populations, cost-
efficiency is extremely important, and lenders would
justifiably want to avoid any unnecessary expenses.
Microcredit is targeted at people who are
excluded from conventional finance and who,
therefore, should have a lower risk of becoming
over-indebted. The payment discipline of low-
income borrowers has been an important part of
the microcredit experience over the past three
decades, and there is a fear that a soft approach
to payment obligations could undermine that
payment discipline through contagion, especially
where loans are not secured by traditional
collateral. However, the number of cases of debt
stress in countries with relatively high penetration
of microcredit in recent years indicates that there
is increasing risk. The potential of harm that
can result from excessive debt for vulnerable
households also calls for caution to avoid debt
stress. In assessing the procedures of microcredit
institutions, regulators should consider and
address the factors that typically characterize
microcredit markets, methods, and client base,
laid out below.
Microcredit factors Possible policy/regulatory approach
Market-level considerations • Bear in mind that, where there are low levels of financial inclusion, it may be reasonable for institutions to experience high growth rates.
• Increase surveillance for signs of debt stress if several different institutions are targeting the same client segment in the same area.
• Monitor average loan size, average repayment period, and the level of rescheduling. If there is an increase in these variables this may be a cause for concern. Monitor arrears rates, disaggregated by region. Assess whether repeat loans, with incrementally higher loan sizes or longer terms, are associated with greater levels of arrears.
• Monitor the potential threat as a result of lending by different categories of lenders to the same client base (MFIs, banks, credit co-operatives, money lenders).
High growth and saturated, highly competitive markets
• Where there is aggressive competition among different lenders in the same area, require some form of client information sharing. Initially this may be limited to sharing of lists of clients who are experiencing arrears, although participation in a credit bureau is preferable.
• Require that lenders establish a complaints system for clients with repayment problems.
• Review large institutions’ growth targets.• Review loan officer incentive structures to ensure there is a balance
between growth and quality incentives.• Assess whether management considered the risk that repayments could be
funded through diversion of other income sources (e.g., remittances, social welfare transfers).
• Require lenders to introduce affordability assessments. Be flexible in different approaches by different lenders and in lenders using proxiesa rather than direct measures of income.
• Require lenders to submit an annual report, in which each lender does a self-assessment of the risk of over-indebtedness and of its own procedures.
29
Microcredit factors Possible policy/regulatory approach
Solidarity group lending • Include some form of business plan assessment that could substitute for an affordability assessment into programs.
• Ensure lending procedures include an enquiry on existing debtb and discussion of debt problems.
• Ensure loan staff should do an added assessment if the group experiences regular arrears.
Irregular income; reliance on household or informal income
• Loan officers should assess whether income sources are realistic and reasonablec and perform further enquiry if there is a cause for concern.
• Set the level of repayments at a reasonable level in relation to estimated family income.
Automatically increased repeat loans
• Recognize that eligibility for repeat loans is a powerful incentive for on-time repayment, which also reduces cost and increases efficiency. However, increasing repeat loans will over time increase the risk of loan size exceeding repayment capacity.
• Place a limit on loan increases when repayments become irregular.
a. Proxies are often more effective than direct measures of income as a result of clients’ unwillingness or inability to provide reliable income statistics. Lending programs that have a savings component could use the amount saved as an indication of a borrower’s ability to service a higher loan size. The key is that each lender should use sound judgment to arrive at an appropriate affordability indicator within its own context.
b. Clients who want more credit may not reveal their obligations. However, there may be indirect sources of information on clients who are over-committed.
c. Although such assessment may be expensive and unreliable, it may be possible to create proxies that will set parameters for “reasonableness.” Such proxies could be set in relation to family size, source of income, etc.
The author of this Focus Note is Gabriel Davel, independent consultant and former CEO of the South Africa Microfinance Regulatory Council and the South Africa National Credit Regulator. The author wishes to acknowledge the editorial and
research support from Megan S. Chapman and valuable input by Katharine McKee and Richard Rosenberg, without which this Focus Note could not have been completed.
No. 83March 2013
Please share thisFocus Note with yourcolleagues or request
extra copies of thispaper or others in
this series.
CGAP welcomesyour comments on
this paper.
All CGAP publicationsare available on the
CGAP Web site atwww.cgap.org.
CGAP1818 H Street, NW
MSN P3-300Washington, DC
20433 USA
Tel: 202-473-9594Fax: 202-522-3744
Email:[email protected]
© CGAP, 2013
The suggested citation for this Focus Note is as follows:Davel, Gabriel. 2013. “Regulatory Options to Curb Debt Stress.” Focus Note 83. Washington, D.C.: CGAP, March.
Print: ISBN 978-1-62696-000-8 epub: ISBN 978-1-62696-002-2
pdf: ISBN 978-1-62696-001-5 mobi: ISBN 978-1-62696-003-9
from the British peopleUKa